Posted By Dave Wilson In all honesty mate isnt that what we in H&S are all about anyway - accident / incident prevention. Get it wrong and you then incur the criminal and civil consequences apart from the heartache, suffering and business damage!

Posted By Jason Gould I personally Dont like that idea as in my LIMITED experience, think that it is going to give the impression the hse is not fully supporting the workforce. I only say this due to an accident I had 10 years ago. Putting it short I severed the ends of two fingers to the point they were hanging off. I was a night shift supervisor and we never had the keys for the gates to the premices. I had to climb a ten ft spiked fence to get to the ambulance. The police stated they were informing the HSE inspecter and I would receive a visit. When speaking to collegues at work we was all hoping that things around our workplace would be tidied up. We all liked our boss he was a generally good chap, so none wanted him prosecuted and was prepared to put this accross to the inspecter. What we wanted was an improvement of conditions and practices. Did we get that visit? NO Incident was wrapped up by telephone conversation to employer. We all lost faith in the HSE and went straight back to the macho attitude at work. two months later one of the lads got his skin peeled of his hand and the ends of his fingers chopped copletely off. Who do you think we blamed? YES you got it the HSE. That was then and knowing a bit more about safety now I understand what probably happened. Root causes missed bla bla. Today we have to consider the fact that there are a lot of safety proffesionals out there. Companies get updated on requirments by email etc etc. Lots of companies have accident form procedures that are passed to the Safety officer/director/boss before notification. I am just wandering how TIDIED up these reports are. The HSE is overstretched as it is and maybe apart from the serious events dont have the recources to investigate many of the smaller incidents etc especially when they now are getting the perfecct accident forms. Maybe it is better they put their recources into something they can action almost immediatly such as site visits etc. I am not going to blurt on and on but one last thought of mine. As an industrial worker for many years and being involved in many a coflict with managment trying to impose safety in the workplace and face cynics. Would it be good to see HSE site visits, spot checks etc where the inspecter corrects unsafe behaviour of employees a little more which in turn assist the employer a lttle. Lets get in the real world when it comes to work forces. We hate managment imposing safety at times especially when other disputes go on. The macho attitude is a large killer in idustry and need addressing from top ranks right down to the workforce. I have worked with plenty of guys that even in safe conditions are a liability to themselves and others. Thes folk need telling and sometimes I think the best person is the factory inspector. It drives the message to the workforce that safety is being tackled on a national front and they are involved not just management. If only it was that simple which im sure it is not. Sorry for bluting on & on I am waiting for the posting (all comments welcome except from Jason gould)

Posted By Jason Gould Dave I understand all of what you have said. I Agree It comes down to Law, advice and Counter claims against HSE/LA etc etc. The potential Drop in the HSE/LA presence is what worries me. A number of visits to workplaces come from the result of a accident reportings. Some smaller companies had proberbly not had a visit for 12 months to 2 years beforehand. usually the results of these visits lead to other actions being taken (improvement notices advice etc) If the already overstretched recources are further reduced for this role that the HSE/LA cover, and the prevention approach is adopted which to me is usually an appointment being made 3 weeks in advance. Then the underlying causes may not be looked at and this will result in a reduction in criminal accountability etc. So they are diverting recources to prevention. I have not read this article. What are they proposing. More site visits More breach prosecutions Higher penalties Bigger visual presence Dave I am 30 Not an Einstein and most of my working life has been manufacturing. I have never had more than 6 months of work in 16 years (I say 16 cos I started work at 14). I have probably had 20-30 different jobs and I can honestly tell you i have never seen or spoke to a factory inspector or LA. They may have been there Ive just not noticed them. What I have seen is Dangerous workers which the employer sees as superman.(Gets the job done) Appauling work conditions (Blokes in school bins used in paint industry spreading a concentrated paint remover inside. Giggling to themselves cos they are high as hell) Terrible Management decisions (we will give you a £300 loyalty bonus as long as you only have two days of in the year)Never mind the fact you are all on a comar site and are operating safety critical systems with the FLU. Many people are a lttle cautious and behave safely for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is the fear factor of (what if it is found to be my fault)If this demises further I feel we will see an increase in accident unless counteracted. I can go on all day but hopefully you will know where Im coming from. Ken Originally asked for thoughts from safety professionals about this decision. What I am Saying is How the decision may affect the perceptions of the work force as a whole; bearing in mind we are not legal eagles and always perceive the HSE as People who collect Brown envelopes from the our bosses.

Posted By Jason Gould Aggree with you Dave I Do. But as you say after Piper Alpha the FOCUS was swithched to offshore safety. FOCUS Are we not discussing the HSE;s FOCUS Or resourses switching from accident investigation to prevention. There are going to be Positives and Neagatives of this decision. A freind of mine owns a windows and glass company. Only small it is. He employed some old school freinds to work there. He Done what he could regards to safety but unfortuantly there was an accident. HSE inspector came for visit and lads talking about company getting prosocuted bla bla. Inspector walked round site and found everything was in order and in some cases very well managed. On her way out she spots one of the lads handling glass without gloves on (from what I am told she warned the lad in front of everyone and instructed that he be disciplined) Not sure if she could do that but the result was Immediate. He and the other lads now more readily accepted good safety practices and the gaffer noticed the improvement in the work shop. That inspector left after an accident investigation. Leaving a workforce behaving in a far safer way. Now you could say well the owner should have had all this covered in a policy, discipline procedure etc etc. Well the lad that was warned was the supervisor top dog on shop floor. The owner was out most of the time generating new buisness. He employed him person to watch shop as he was trustworthy bla bla. What I am trying to get at is the fact that many visits after accident investigations are Beneficial to Owners and the workforce. If this is going to be swapped for More telephone call investiagtions due to resources and money is going to be diverted to prevention which does usually come in form of pre booked appointments. Things like this are going to get overlooked. In larger companies I think directors/safety officers and managers from different departments do checks/inspections / investigations etc on each other. So theres less of an excuse. Now Dave from my understanding more fatalities come from smaller companies unless you get Piper Alpher Etc. If the Prevention Tactics is not Thought out correctly we will see a rise in accidents. I am going to keep my eye on this. Good safety management is fine when as you say you can afford it. But HSE/LA investigations do cover smaller comanies and can improve conditions and yes Dave it can also have employees singing and dancing safety managment systems epesially when they are aware they too can be singled out and disciplined etc. Bye the way I watched the documentry on Piper Alpha It was one of the best documentries ive seen. The one where the companies involved refused to let suvivers board the second rig or speak to anyone. Disgusting

Posted By Jim Walker Dave, I think Jason meant that the HSE masters (politicians) are getting the "brown envelopes" from the employers. I've witnessed visits by inspectors that have resulted in friendly advice only and it certainly lifts the H&S priority for all concerned (them & us !!) at least for a time. Lets have more inspectors and more visits. There are too many employers out there brushing H&S under the carpet.

Posted By Dave Wilson Jim & Jon you trying to wind me up here, its not friday yet! As an ex 'enforcement' Officer, there are a range of things at your disposal from 'friendly advice' to 'prosecution' and its at the discretion of the Inspector at the time and they have to take into considertaion load of things, severity, past record, public perception, likely hood of success, commitment and co-opertion from the employer are but a few, also in the LA what poliical power is in the town hall has a bearing as well. Blue half sort at the rotary or lodge / golf course Red half serve notice / proesecute drag through the courts Ever been let off from speeding, broken light? has it stopped you? This will not change things one iota maybe HSE inspections should be done under a 'risk' based system very much like Food Safety and the risk which your business poses will determine how often and by whom you get a visit. Guys I've been on both sides of the fence and the jobs are so fundamentally diffirent in approach, dont need cajolling / charismatic / humour or be pragmatic just need 'do it or I will prosecute as the regs say I can.

Posted By David Sinclair I have been watching the thread of this article with interest and I will if I may summarise the facts in relation to this matter, before giving my views. The HSE has recently announced it is to adopt new approaches to incident investigation management and revise its incident selection criteria. In short, the HSE's Field Operations Division ("FOD")will spend more time carrying out pro-active inspections and less time investigating accidents. FOD will also streamline its investigation procedures to try and gather more information on a first visit to site. This is in line with the HSE's recently published revisions to its "investigation procedure". The end result will be that the HSE will investigate less accidents, leaving it more time to concentrate on preventative inspections. It does of course also allow it to reduce its costs and stay within its reduced budget. This may appear to some a retrograde step (i.e. less accident investigations, therefore less prosecutions) and I have some sympathy with that view. There are however a number of other factors in play (or about to come into play) that together should ensure that health and safety standards do not drop too much (if at all). The first is that in the Government's recently published review on Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance ("ELCI"), it was evident that in future, companies with a poor accident record will find it difficult (i.e. expensive) to obtain ELCI, if in fact they can obtain ELCI at all. This in itself should prompt companies to improve health and safety and reduce accidents, without HSE intervention. Secondly, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards)Bill is in its final parliamentary stages and it should be law later this year. This Bill will (amonst other things) allow the NHS to recover the cost of treating work-related accidents. Since companies will seek to insure against such costs, there is an incentive on them to reduce their accident levels in order to obtain reasonably priced insurance. Thirdly, there is currently out to consultation proposals which are likely to be enacted in the form of a new Companies Act (probably in 2005). Amongst other things, the Act will for the first time introduce statutory duties for directors. These duties will include individual duties relating to Health, safety and environment. Since a breach of these duties will incur personal liability on the part of directors (and potentially other officers of the company), there is again an incentive for companies to reduce accidents at work. Finally, the HSE is about to consult on the long-awaited removal of the current exclusion of civil liability in relation to employees from Regulation 22 from the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (and thereafter from all health and safety legislation). Once removed, employees will be able to use a breach of the Regulations (without the need for a prosecution) in any civil action for compensation, which is based on the negligence of the employer. The point that I am making in a long-winded way is the HSE's proposal to reduce its number of "reactive" interventions will be picked up elsewhere in the system. The reduction in reactive interventions will however allow the HSE to carry out more "pro-active" interventions (such as those carried out by the Construction Division in the "Construction Blitz" programme). I understand the Blitz programme has been very successful in highlighting health and safety and improving site conditions. Regards. David

Posted By Jason Gould David I read your comments and they are very interesting. Do you know where on the net I can read more about this. LOOKS LIKE COMPANIES WILL HAVE TO START SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THEIR POLICIES AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES AS DAVE.W HAS ALREADY MENTIONED. I am not fully to upto date with current events on the horizon. Are these a definate. Whats happened to corporate manslaughter? I beleive it has missed its turn. I can see claim farms rubbing their hands at the removal of clause for civil liability of management regs. All sounds great If it gets down to the man/woman on the shop floor. Management have the biggest role in influencing behaviour in their workplace. But the presence or lack off presence from the enforcing agencies definatly has the strongest effect. Yes sack the risk takers. Yes management should be actively involed in reinforcing safety in their own workplaces. (Hope they get more support from goverment such as incentives grants etc) Yes companies Think it is cheaper to ignore safety than invest in it.(Hope they get whats coming to them pref larger fines and more prison sentences) Yes employees use safety when it suits them. (Hope more decisions reflect contribution factor alot more than it does now) And Finally is there more industry can do i.e. checking each other similar to when they check for iso 14001. The 18000 from what i am told is a little too expensive to implement(not sure). Its been an eye opener for me folks thanks. Regard Jason (pondering the future)

Posted By Jonathan Breeze So from what Mark says, I guess it depends on what your philosphical/ political outlook to crime & punishment is as to whether you're for or against the change. Can I therefore assume that the Daily Telegraph thought it was a bad idea?

Posted By David Sinclair While most of this material is on the web (try CCA website as a good start), as a law firm we get our information from a range of different sources. Everything stated in my article has been published and all the proposals are making their way through the relevant systems. Whether they will all make it to the end is another matter. My belief is the ones I have mentioned are almost certain to become law. Re Corporate Killing, the current Bill is still in the pipeline (awiating a second reading), but watch this space as new proposals are set to be introduced (against the Government's wishes) later this year. There will also be another Bill introducing ciminal liabiity for directors. Whether they make it through to become law is of course another matter. My personal view is we will not see corporate killing legislation this side of a General Election. Regards. David

Posted By Dave Wilson Raymond, how can the courts be proactive, get dragged in front of a QC and told what a good company you are and given £200k out of the public purse. If you ask any of the relatives of disasters where people have been hurt and yes they do want to 'blame' someone so that the person who was 'responsible' gets taken to task, its part of their grieving process and it is very difficult to come to terms with things if this cannot happen, Look at the 'Lockerbie' scenario to this day the relatives still want justice and more importantly want justice to be 'seen to be done'. Now if any enforcement body wants to get into a 'real' proactive stance then they have my vote anyday.

Posted By Dave Wilson Ray, Do agree to a certain extent, 'Lockerbie' was a bad example but it is topical. problem mate is that the purpose of 'regulators' is to regulate and courts punish / opportion liability to people / organisations so how do they become 'proactive'? If the HSE are to start doing what you advocate the amount of Enforcers out there would be astronomical, if they cant get it right at the moment and are snowed under then throwing more resources at it I think may not be the way forward. Its up to employers, their H&S People, workforce and the TU together which can make all the difference, sometimes I feel that the HSE/LA go after big companies for the headlines and in reality it is the SME's who are probably responsible for the majority of injuries and deaths in the UK, so maybe a 'risk' based approach will be needed.